Now I understand why KJ-200s are present at Peace Mission 2014. Looks like Kazhakstanis Su-27s might simulate air combat with J-10s and J-11s!
East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone
- Thread starter joshuatree
- Start date
- Status
Now I understand why KJ-200s are present at Peace Mission 2014. Looks like Kazhakstanis Su-27s might simulate air combat with J-10s and J-11s!
A small gallery, here
Well, I'd expect an AEWC to be present at any exercise on this scale involving the number of aircraft we are seeing. Doesn't necessarily mean there will be dact.
Last edited:
Two things.
1) Most mis-identification I have seen come from the press.
2) Sadly, some of today's younger intel folks could easily have misnamed the aircraft. The PRC bought quite a few SU-27s. They then license built quite a few more which are J-11s.
The purely indigenous J-11B could easily be misnamed unless they did a lot more in depth research and knew their stuff...or, hehehe, asked some folks here on SD. LOL!
Blackstone
Brigadier
But, you'd figure Mexican Infintry would be very interested in knowing PLANAF is using WS-10s on routine maritime patrol. Or not.
antiterror13
Brigadier
But the US is the only superpower, why would the US need any approval from others.
Interesting to see the US reaction if lets say China or Russia fly their plane (surveillance) close enough to West Coast ... close to 200 miles .. so technically still International water
shen
Senior Member
American rules are designed to benefit America, which has world bases to spy on anybody it wants.
the ultimate solution may be a version of the Treaty on Open Skies. US should provide bases to allow Chines surveillance patrols in American EEZ.
Rules of conduct are designed to keep everybody safe, allow both sides to verify what they are looking at accurately, and prevent international incident. Little doubt that the Chinese are concerned about Hainan proxyimity, and posed a very real and blatant safety violation by rolling around the P-8....wouldn't surprise me to see F-22s scrambled to run intercepts on the bad guy. Maybe even follow them around a while???
That's beside the point. The real issue is surveillance and reconnaissance. It's unbalancing and strongly favors the stronger side.
Even when both side is equal, perfect information provides opportunity to attack when there is momentary weakness, while when both sides are opaque, then you cannot make that assumption.
With unequal power, this is acerbated, since weaker side is always weak, and perfect information invites knockout punch, while the weaker side cannot do the same. If both side are opaque, at least knockout punch cannot be achieved so easily.
Again, do you really want anyone to poke around your nuke assets? If all you are interested is in limited war, then you should avoid doing that because that will provoke the other side to use the nukes before they lose them. If you know that and insist on doing so, then they must suspect you are planning a total war.
Do this to the Russians, I think they will shoot you down. Chinese, at least, are courteous enough to give you a warning, as rude as it is.
I seriously don't think top people in Washington who is well versed in MAD issues will knowingly provoke China. Whoever authorized this overstepped his/her authority as this has ramification way above his/her pay grade.
If I remember correctly, the EP3 incident was partially caused by one such screw-up. There was a treaty with Russia reducing the surveillance intensity, so instead of just stopping flights, the area commander redirected those flights to China. China interpreted this, in conjunction with international situation (beginning of Bush Jr administration and neocons) as the are being targeted. Hence the increasingly aggressive response. And this was before China moved the SSBN to Hainan.
If you only worry about flight safety, you are missing the forest for the tree.
Edit:
By the way, Peter Lee at China Matters Blog implies this is a deliberate provocation by one faction of US Navy...
Last edited:
Brumby
Major
That is the whole point. The rest of your reasoning and logic is superfluous to the conversation. Rules are to ensure safety and to prevent miscalculation.
Don't dumb this down.
Intercepting planes are normal, and yes, there are fairly consistent and safe ranges they can be done at.
But deliberately displaying aggressive actions is a warning to not come any closer. That is to say, the actions and the capability of the intercepted side have been sufficiently provocative to incite this kind of response.
The same logic can be applied to the cowpens incident.
Putting it another way: was the pilot maneuver potentially dangerous? Yes, absolutely.
Was there a reason for the dangerous act? Almost absolutely yes, as well, given how previous interceptions are barely reported.
Was it reasonable for china to not want to have some of its most sensitive sites spied on, in its present security climate? The answer to THIS, is the big point.
And also some aircraft carrier battle groups within range of all its major coastal cities and nuclear sub bases, I think that would just about do the trick.
Last edited:
- Status